How to fork mercurial repo while also forking subrepos - mercurial

I have a mercurial repo that has 5 sub repos (all mercurial on ssh servers).
I'd like to make a copy this repo and copies of all sub repos and put them on another server. Then on my workstation I need to push to those repos when pushing.
On my server so far I've done:
newserver> cd /my/newrepo/path
newserver> hg clone -U ssh://me#originalserver//my/repo/path
Followed by the commands on my worksatation:
workstation> hg clone ssh://me#newserver//my/newrepo/path
Then when I try to push, it pushes all subrepos to their original server

Re-read about Subrepositories in Mercurial, pay attention to "Remote Subrepositories" part.
In short: you have to rewrite subrepos definitions (make subrepositories local) by replacing URLs with relative path in .hgsub or clone each subrepository separately to ssh://newserver and changing URLs accordingly
PS: Username in ssh-URL is BAD IDEA (tm) - you have to use more natural HG-way of [auth] section in .hgrc

Related

Mq on a subrepo without write access

I have a dependancy as a subrepository (without write access to) in my project.
I'd like to add a few personal customizations to that subrepository - possibly using mq.
I also would love to be able to just clone the main repo to build it. Currently I have to:
clone the repo - with subrepositories getting cloned automagically
manually clone all the patchqueues for subrepositories
How do I get rid of step 2? Is it even possible without an outside script? (I'm using bitbucket if it makes any difference).
One notion is to make the subrepo not the repo to which you have no write access, but a clone of your own based on their repo.
cd myclones
hg clone http://notmydomain.com/their-repo my-clone-of-their-repo
and in your project's .hg/hgrc you use a [subpaths] section to map their URL to your local clone:
[subpaths]
http://notmydomain.com/their-repo = ../my-clone-of-their-repo
Then you end up with your repo using your local (read-write) clone of their repo to which you otherwise have read-only access. This has a few benefits:
faster -- you're only checking local repositories for all actions
writeable -- you can edit directoy in myproject/their-repo and commit and push (to your local clone)
And when you want to merge in their upstream changes you just go into ../my-clone-of-their-repo and hg pull and hg merge their updates into your customizations.

Embedding a github repository inside a mercurial (kiln) repository - how integrated is it?

Summarised Question:
Are github-hosted sub repositories within a mercurial/kiln repository possible, and if so are they automatically updated/cloned when the parent mercurial repository is operated on by a hg clone or hg commit command?
Detailed Question:
Following on from my question that was answered so excellently here , some of my third party code is in folders I downloaded a while ago from opensource efforts on github. Since at that stage I was not using version control, those folders where just standard folders that now been incorporated as sub repositories in mercurial.
This is obviously not ideal, as for one thing, new versions of the libraries may have bug fixes, or new features I wish to use in the future. I also may need to locally customise some of the libraries.
I can see from reading this link that it possible to have mercurial "know" about those git server urls (and revisions), so I can then have mercurial clone the github hosted libraries direct from their parent repos.
Am I right in saying that when I clone the parent (mercurial) repos, those files will be pulled from github, without having to separately manage this using git?
What is also not clear is, if I were to do this, and it transpired that code might need to be customized from within that github-cloned repository, would I need to use git to manage revisions of the local files, or would mercurial do that by proxy? eg id I were to hg commit -S would mercurial invoke git on my behalf to handle that?
Am I right in saying that when I clone the parent (mercurial) repos, those files will be pulled from github, without having to separately manage this using git?
Yes, clone of a Mercurial repository that contain subrepositories will trigger a clone of the subrepos too. It really happens on update. Mercurial notices the .hgsub file and issues the needed hg clone and git clone commands for you. It uses the information in .hgsubstate to know exactly what revision to checkout.
The subrepositories can be hosted anywhere. For a Git subrepository declared like
foo = [git]https://github.com/user/repo.git
Mercurial will simply issue the corresponding clone command:
git clone https://github.com/user/repo.git foo
It's then your reponsibility to later go into the foo repo and use Git to fetch new commits as necessary. After you fetch/pull new commits, you can make a top-level commit to record the new state of the subrepo in the .hgsubstate file. Use hg summary to see if a subrepo is dirty in this sense.
[...] would I need to use git to manage revisions of the local files, or would mercurial do that by proxy? eg id I were to hg commit -S would mercurial invoke git on my behalf to handle that?
When you edit files and make a top-level hg commit, Mercurial will make sure to commit the subrepo first (if you use hg commit -S or if ui.commitsubrepos=True). If you make a top-level push, then Mercurial will always push the subrepos first so that you always have a consistent set of changes on your server.

What's the best way to start a project in mercurial when you already have files in the project?

I'm starting with Mercurial. I'm reading the mercurial book but still have a question.
I've started my project month ago, and i have a lot of files and directories in it. Now, i want to use Mercurial and made myself an account in bitbucket. Now, i want to set this project up in Bitbucket. How can i add all those files to the bitbucket repo?
This is what i was thinking i could do:
I could try to (1) clone the empty repo (from bitbucket) (1) copy all files into that directory, (3) issue an "hg add" and after that (4) commiting.
Maybe you have a better way to do this.
Thanks!
(1)
hg clone https://ME#bitbucket.org/ME/myproject
(2)
cp existing-project/* myproject/
cd myproject
(3)
hg add
(4)
hg commit -u ME
(5)
hg push (i think i have to do this to make the changes visible)
You can simply hg init, hg add, and hg commit in the original project folder, then edit ~/project/.hg/hgrc to add a default-push location of your bitbucket repo (you can clone it to a temporary folder to get the hgrc created for you which you can copy into your project, even, without needing to RTFM for the right syntax.)
Because of the distributed nature of mercurial, this hgrc entry is the only thing relating your local repo to bitbucket at all; you can even hg push https://ME#bitbucket.org/ME/myproject without making the link explicit anywhere. Each copy of a repository is completely self-sufficient.
Wooble's answer is ok, but it's missing something, so I'm supplementing here.
When you first create an empty repository (by hg init or creating on bitbucket), it has no identity. However, as soon as it has any changesets, it has an identity and you can only push/pull between it and repositories that share that identity.
If you had 2 repositories A and B for separate projects, you wouldn't be able push/pull between them. Once you create a new repository on bitbucket you can push changesets from either A or B to that repo once. If you push changes from B that first time, the bitbucket repository is now related to B. You can't then push changesets from A into it, or pull changesets into A from it.
So when Wooble says,
...this hgrc entry is the only thing relating your local repo to bitbucket at all;
That is correct while it is still empty as it is not related to any repositories until it has changesets. And you still need that address to be able to push/pull between your local repo and the bitbucket repo, but once you've pushed changesets to it it also has that identity that relates it to your local repo.

Mercurial - determining if a merge is required from remote repo

We have two repositories: myapp and myapp-1.1. We merge myapp-1.1 into myapp.
To see if there are changes in 1.1 that need to be merged I do this:
cd c:\myapp (local clone)
hg fetch (fetch from remote myapp repo)
hg in ssh://hg/myapp-1.1 (see what needs to be merged in from remote 1.1 repo)
This works - but is there a better way? Is there a way to do this without requiring the local myapp clone?
Mercurial can't do much with remote repositories except for some variant of pushing to, or pulling from them.
As such, anything you want to ask Mercurial to do has to be done with a local clone.
So no, there is no way to have Mercurial check if two remote repositories needs to be merged.
What's the problem with having local clone, exactly?
If you want to isolate all operations on machine the repo is located, you could do the following:
$ ssh $hg_box
$ cd myapp; hg in /myapp-1.1
This may seem like the obvious response, but since Mercurial is a completely distributed source control system, and each repo is stand alone, is it possible for you to actually go to the box that has myapp and fetch directly from myapp-1.1? I know most dev teams keep some kind of centralized repository, but that doesn't preclude the use of Mercurial directly from the box that you have as your 'central' repository. It's all still local and remote repositories.
This assumes that you want to fully merge myapp and myapp1.1. Otherwise, pretty much by definition of what you're doing, you have to clone myapp to another full repository, then merge it with myapp-1.1.
Assuming neither the remote repo nor the local repo allows multiple heads per branch, this command should tell if the local repo has the head of the remote repo at a given branch:
hg log -r $( hg in -b branch_name -n -l1 -q --template "{node}\n" )
If local repo doesn't have that changeset, but has outgoing changesets at "branch_name", then typically it should be an indicator that merge is needed.

how do i setup a local working directory to work with a local repo using Mercurial

Following is the scenario: I have a remote Mercurial repository at ssh://remotehost//dir/repo and I am able to clone it to a local host "pandora" in directory /home/user/localrepo/.
Now, I have a superset of this remote repository, where I add my own testing framework, but do not want to merge to the main depot until I am certain it works. So I clone this "local" repo to /home/user/workingdir/ but when I issue the command to do so
$ hg clone /home/user/localrepo/
only the repository folder gets copied none of the files get copied.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "only the repo folders gets copied". So there's two things you can try :
Try to do a hg update in your new clone.
List the directory in /home/user/workingdir and if there is a directory name localrepo in it, this is actually your repository. To clone in the current directory, you must do hg clone /home/user/localrepo .
This sounds odd but try a few things:
First in the local repo that you cloned from do a
hg status -A
are all the files that you think should be in there in there? If not are you at the tip of the repo.
You can see what revision you are at with
hg parent
If you want to just go to the tip do hg update
If there still aren't any files listed in the repo do the same to check the one on the server.
If there aren't any files on the server you will need to add all of the files you want mercurial to track, mercurial doesn't automagically start tracking files in the repo location.
(Use hg add --all to add all of the file in the entire directory tree under the repo location.)
If there are files in the local repo, check the testing area and make sure that it is on the proper changeset.